2007

Alms for Oblivion

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0321  Thursday, 3 May 2007

[1] 	From: 	Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Friday, 20 Apr 2007 01:05:26 -0700
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0295 Alms for Oblivion

[2] 	From: 	Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Friday, 20 Apr 2007 10:41:04 +0100
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0276 Alms for Oblivion

[3] 	From: 	Connie Geller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Saturday, 21 Apr 2007 08:37:52 -0500
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0295 Alms for Oblivion

[4] 	From: 	Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Saturday, 21 Apr 2007 23:59:33 -0700
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0269 Alms for Oblivion

[5] 	From: 	Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Monday, 23 Apr 2007 10:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0295 Alms for Oblivion


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 20 Apr 2007 01:05:26 -0700
Subject: 18.0295 Alms for Oblivion
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0295 Alms for Oblivion

Joseph Egert writes:

>Robert Projansky writes:
>
>  "There is no artist more abused by novelty than WS."
>
>In the year 2007, or 56 AD (Anno Derridi), a man about fifty,
>intimately familiar with Shakespeare's works, both paged and
>staged, buys a ticket to the Stratford Doran production of
>"CORIOLANUS by William Shakespeare." There he witnesses, as
>described by Charles Weinstein, "an intermittent androphilia/
>gynophobia", an "unforgivably" changed penultimate line, and the
>title character's self-impalement on Aufidius' sword and Pieta
>cradling in his enemy's arms. Furious, the patron tracks down the
>theater owner and complains, "This play, as performed, is not by
>William Shakespeare, as advertised. This is outright cozenage! I
>demand my money back!" The owner refuses, at which point the patron
>warns, "I Will not rest until I am reimbursed."
>
>Who should decide who gets the money? What is the optimal legal
>mechanism?
>
>  Perplexed,
>  Joe Egert

Dear Perplexed,

I don't know if I am being invited to respond to this message, which 
perplexes me too. My answers: I have no idea.

I am not sure I understand the connection between my quoted words and the 
exam question that follows or even if we are having an argument.  You do 
seem to say that the production has ruined Shakespeare's play, and that's 
a squawk I have made myself about many productions. You also see 
"borrowed" things in it as emblematic of artistic bankruptcy. I haven't 
seen this production but I do not object to "borrowing". I infer that you 
prefer to see new stuff when you go to the theater, not the same old 
stuff.

  I want to see Shakespeare presented imaginatively, fresh, with lots of 
creativity to admire and ooh and aah at, but I would rather see the most 
pedestrian (but intelligible) production imaginable than to see a 
production that does violence to the play. When I say there is no artist 
more abused by novelty than WS I certainly am not condemning innovation in 
Shakespeare performance. But I know from experience there are many 
directors out there -- all of whom want some WS on their resums -- who 
neither care nor know anything about Shakespeare, who find him boring. 
Such directors always want to mess  with the play, cut it to under two 
hours, use a lot of inappropriate  music (can you imagine Eartha Kitt's 
"Santa, Baby" sung in Act IV of  Titus Andronicus? Alas, I don't have to 
imagine it), and set it in some period and place that will mean snazzier 
costumes. They don't know or care about verse technique, they jam their 
period/place round peg into history's square hole, and they hew their way 
through the text with a bloody axe. To get the job they come with a 
"concept" - like a MAAN set in Texas with the soldiers returning from WW 
II and everyone drawling unintelligibly as if they were in "The Last 
Picture Show". Worse: Duncan as a godfather mafioso and Mac and all the 
other thanes his mob. That's what I mean by abused by novelty. In 
Portland, OR, a few years ago, a MOV by that city's leading company was 
set in a brothel/ disco (no hautboys in that show). What the hell can that 
do for MOV? The director was a Hungarian who spoke no English and had to 
communicate with his actors through an interpreter. What does that tell 
you about respect for the language? And this company with a budget of 
millions. The justification for the damage done is always "making the play 
more accessible to the audience" which is a crock; how is the verse more 
accessible if it's spoken by cowboys or surfers or Nazis who can't even 
scan it? No, "making the play more accessible to the audience" is code 
for: "I myself wouldn't pay to see this 400- year-old turkey, and unless I 
jazz up the play we won't be able to get the public's backsides into these 
seats." Most productions that serve up such a concept twist the play away 
from what WS wrote and get nothing whatsoever in return. Except those 
Gosford Park costumes.

Sorry this is so long. Best to all.

Bob Projansky

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 20 Apr 2007 10:41:04 +0100
Subject: 18.0276 Alms for Oblivion
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0276 Alms for Oblivion

I repeat. Charles Weinstein says that, in Coriolanus, William Houston 
'unforgivably changes his penultimate line to "...like an eagle in a 
dove's-cote, I/Fluttered all your Volscians in Corioles." '  Could he be 
more specific?

T. Hawkes

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Connie Geller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Saturday, 21 Apr 2007 08:37:52 -0500
Subject: 18.0295 Alms for Oblivion
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0295 Alms for Oblivion

I don't mind deciding myself. The jerk doesn't get his money back.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Saturday, 21 Apr 2007 23:59:33 -0700
Subject: 18.0269 Alms for Oblivion
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0269 Alms for Oblivion

Charles Weinstein writes:

>Obviously, transmuted influence is one thing while unacknowledged
>borrowings are another.  In that regard, theatrical plagiarism is
>every bit as fraudulent and aesthetically bankrupt as literary
>plagiarism. Listmembers who condemn the latter should really think
>twice before condoning the former.

I think this overstates the offense, if it is one at all.  Does re- using 
some uncopyrighted thing that's been done onstage before rise (or sink) to 
"plagiarism"? If some director wants to use video  monitors onstage in his 
next play, is he or she obliged by the law or  civilized standards of 
decency to acknowledge that he is "borrowing"  this gimmick from someone? 
If it's borrowed, there's an owner. Must he acknowledge the owner from 
whom he borrowed it? Must he get that owner's permission?

I know an actor who admired a particular gesture he saw Ralph Richardson 
do in a film, and he has used that same distinctive gesture himself a few 
times, without permission of Ralph Richardson or his estate. Must he 
really confess this plagiarism? If he is going to do it onstage must he 
acknowledge it in his bio in the program?  And how would he know whether 
or not RR was its actual author and owner? Maybe Ralph Richardson 
"borrowed" it himself.

Charles Weinstein's own personal standard as a critic or audience member 
may be one of strict liability, but I don't think it is the  standard in 
the theater, where actors' and directors' choices are not  held quite as 
closely as, say, George Harrison's lyrics. I grant that duplicating a 
director's entire production would be plagiarism and malfeasance, but I 
don't think actors and directors think of themselves as owners of a 
particular line reading or scene blocking or gesture or stage business. 
The very few times I have heard complaints about being copied it sounded 
to me like camouflaged bragging.

Bob Projansky

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 23 Apr 2007 10:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 18.0295 Alms for Oblivion
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0295 Alms for Oblivion

Here, with his permission, is Dan Venning's reply to my query:

>Dear Joe:
>
>A few rambling thoughts in response to your closing question:
>
>There is absolutely no way the patron in question would win a case that
>actually went to trial, although if s/he were seriously irate enough,
>threatening legal action would possibly, but probably not, be enough to
>frighten or annoy the theater into refunding the ticket.
>
>The reason it might work: theatres are poor, in general. They're afraid 
of
>anything that would cost them money (of course, this makes one ticket 
price
>valuable to them).
>
>The reason it probably wouldn't work: Principle. Theatre managers will 
not
>want to start a precedent of refunding tickets when patrons aren't happy
>with the production.
>
>Why wouldn't legal action work? Because the theatres have a plethora of
>arguments in their favor: Traditionally, one is not allowed to get one's
>money back after a production because one didn't like it, for whatever
>reason. Shakespeare's texts are not fixed, stable entities, and are not
>under copyright, so directors have the freedom to adapt them. There is a
>tradition of liberal adaptation in staging Shakespearean plays, so an
>audience member should always be prepared for the possibility of a
>nontraditional performance, even a radically nontraditional one. If the
>audience member had read Weinstein's review beforehand, this would be 
even
>more problematic, because s/he had essentially been warned.
>
>That last reason is why the "false advertising" argument wouldn't work,
>either. Saying, "CORIOLANUS, by William Shakespeare," is not the same as
>advertising "CORIOLANUS, exactly as written by William Shakespeare, 
without
>alteration whatsoever." Perhaps it would have been more honest, in this
>case, to say "CORIOLANUS, adapted from William Shakespeare," but even the
>Wooster Group's HAMLET had the line, "by William Shakespeare," and every
>audience member knew that the play was HAMLET by The Wooster Group (&
>Shakespeare). When attending a production of one of Shakespeare's plays, 
one
>has to take the "by William Shakespeare" with a grain of salt until
>evaluating the production.
>
>On the other hand, if the patron was seriously offended and really wanted 
to
>hit the theatre where it hurt, instead of demanding his/her money back, 
s/he
>should write an eloquent letter to the theatre explaining exactly why 
s/he
>will NEVER return to this particular venue (especially powerful if the
>patron has been a subscriber). Theatres pay attention to such letters,
>because every patron counts.
>
>Hope these rambling thoughts are of interest to you,
>
>Dan Venning


_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions 
expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor 
assumes no responsibility for them.

Award for "The Masks of Anthony and Cleopatra"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0320  Thursday, 3 May 2007

From: 		Mary Rosenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 01 May 2007 10:01:41 -0700
Subject: 	Award for "The Masks of Anthony and Cleopatra"

May 1st 2007

I'm happy to share the news that Marvin Rosenberg's posthumous "The Masks 
of Anthony and Cleopatra" has just won the Theatre Library Association's 
George Freedley Award for an outstanding book in the field of theatre or 
live performance published in 2006.  The presentation will be in New York 
on June 1st at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts. "The 
Masks of Hamlet" won the same award in 1992. Marvin would have been 
thrilled all over again!

Mary Rosenberg

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions 
expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor 
assumes no responsibility for them.

REED's Cheshire in Print and Online

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0318  Thursday, 3 May 2007

From: 		Sally-Beth MacLean <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 27 Apr 2007 15:17:47 -0400
Subject: 	REED's Cheshire in Print and Online

The Records of Early English Drama (REED) project is proud to announce the 
publication of the latest 2 volumes in the series:  Cheshire, including 
Chester, edited by Elizabeth Baldwin, Lawrence M. Clopper and David Mills. 
Clopper and Mills have collaborated on a revised, expanded collection of 
Chester records with more detailed editorial apparatus than was possible 
in 1979 when the first volume of Chester records (long of print) was 
published. Immediately available online at 
http://link.library.utoronto.ca/reed/ are details relating to performance 
events, venues, professional troupes and patrons associated with the 
county of Cheshire.

Further information about REED's latest print publication can be found on 
REED's web site (http://www.reed.utoronto.ca/index.html) and on the 
University of Toronto Press site (http://www.utppublishing.com/).

Sally-Beth MacLean
Executive Editor


_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions 
expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor 
assumes no responsibility for them.

That "New" Poem by Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0319  Thursday, 3 May 2007

From: 		Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 23 Apr 2007 00:41:36 -0700
Subject: 	That "New" Poem by Shakespeare

Friday and over the weekend a couple of London papers gushed about a "new" 
poem by Shakespeare (Google News collection at http://tinyurl.com/2lvwnv). 
The poem was apparently found 30 years ago by two American scholars, 
William Ringler and Steven May, who were searching through collections of 
British court poetry.  The news, it seems, is that the 18-line poem, 
called "To the Queen" or "'To the Queen by the Players," has been given 
scholarly imprimatur and included in the new edition of the complete works 
informally called the "RSC Shakespeare," edited by Jonathan Bate and Eric 
Rasmussen (published in US by Modern Library at $65, in UK by Palgrave 
Macmillan at 30).

The poem was read on BBC Radio 4 Saturday but the actual text has been 
difficult to find online.  Here it is, followed by Bate's blog comments 
about the to-do.

'To the Queen'

As the dial hand tells o'er
The same hours it had before,
Still beginning in the ending,
Circular account still lending,
So, most mighty Queen we pray,
Like the dial day by day
You may lead the sessions on,
That the babe which now is young
And hath yet no use of tongue
Many a Shrovetide here may bow
To that empress I do now,
That the children of these lords,
Sitting at your council boards,
May be grave and aged seen
Of her that was their fathers' queen
Once I wish this wish again,
Heaven subscribe it with
'Amen'

Bate wrote Friday on the book's blog (http://palgrave.typepad.com/rsc/) 
this note on the poem's provenance and the flurry of publicity:

The one "new" poem -- poem not firmly attributed in any previous edition, 
not modernised in spelling and placed with the other poems -- in which we 
have faith is "To the Queen by the Players".

Unusually, this has both internal and external evidence for attribution. 
Externally, it can be tied with precision to the performance given by 
Shakespeare's acting company before the queen at Richmond Palace on 20 Feb 
1599. Internally, its metre, grammar and vocabulary are all deeply 
Shakespearean (note especially the genitive-without-an-apostrophe, "their 
father queen", and compare "my father house" in Antony and Cleo).

So we're the first edition to give it true canonical status (Oxford 
ignores it, Riverside and Norton bung it in the back in old spelling with 
assorted background documents). It was Jim Shapiro's book 1599 that made 
me think it was worth investigating the attribution in detail. We arranged 
for it to be read on the "Today" programme tomorrow [Saturday] morning by 
RSC actor Geoffrey Streatfeild, the conceit being that it is Queen 
Elizabeth II's birthday and here is a little-known poem by Shakespeare in 
honour of Queen Elizabeth I.

But the result of announcing the upcoming broadcast was that a single 
journalist got the wrong end of the stick and published on the newswire 
that we'd found a hitherto unknown Shakespeare poem.

The real story is less dramatic, though still a story: on considered 
reflection we have upgraded a poem discovered some thirty years ago from 
dubia to canonical status. What is scary is how within minutes of the 
exaggerated story being put onto the wire, I had tabloid journalists from 
several national papers on the phone.

But for some rapid news management, a false story would have been flashed 
around the world. I hope the story will now be reported modestly and 
accurately, but the way that it nearly went big without good cause shows 
how Shakespeare's cultural capital is close to an all-time high.

[End de Bate]

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions 
expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor 
assumes no responsibility for them.

Shakespeare Not

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0317  Thursday, 3 May 2007

[1] 	From: 	Marilyn A. Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Friday, 20 Apr 2007 03:16:52 -0400
 	Subj: 	RE: SHK 18.0302 Shakespeare Not

[2] 	From: 	Douglas M Lanier <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Friday, 20 Apr 2007 09:32:12 -0400
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0302 Shakespeare Not

[3] 	From: 	John D. Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Friday, 20 Apr 2007 11:43:16 -0400
 	Subj: 	RE: SHK 18.0302 Shakespeare Not

[4] 	From: 	Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Friday, 20 Apr 2007 11:03:28 -0500
 	Subj: 	RE: SHK 18.0302 Shakespeare Not

[5] 	From: 	Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Friday, 20 Apr 2007 19:01:36 +0100
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0302 Shakespeare Not

[6] 	From: 	William Babula <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Friday, 20 Apr 2007 11:37:34 -0700
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0302 Shakespeare Not

[7] 	From: 	Ira Zinman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Saturday, 21 Apr 2007 21:44:54 EDT
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0302 Shakespeare Not

[8] 	From: 	V. K. Inman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
 	Date: 	Monday, 23 Apr 2007 09:19:52 -0400
 	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0302 Shakespeare Not


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Marilyn A. Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 20 Apr 2007 03:16:52 -0400
Subject: 18.0302 Shakespeare Not
Comment: 	RE: SHK 18.0302 Shakespeare Not

QUOTE from article: Earning a bachelor's degree in English without the 
study of Shakespeare "is tantamount to fraud," says Anne Neal, president 
of the group.

I have to say I agree with this assessment, as one who was frustrated at 
*only* two available undergraduate courses in Shakespeare.

And I would very much like to understand the rationale behind eliminating 
a Shakespeare requirement for English majors.  Anyone out there?

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Douglas M Lanier <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 20 Apr 2007 09:32:12 -0400
Subject: 18.0302 Shakespeare Not
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0302 Shakespeare Not

This news story needs some close parsing.  It is little more than a 
repackaging of a report from the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, 
a conservative organization formerly headed by Lynne Cheney and funded at 
its inception by the Bradley and Olin foundations.  Its most famous 
previous "report" was "Defending Civilization:  How our Universities are 
Failing America and What can be Done about it," issued after 9/11, which 
argued that criticism of Bush policies was tantamount to failing to defend 
Western civilization.  That report included a list of professors who were 
putatively "short on patriotism," a list which many saw as an implicit 
blacklist.

The ACTA has used Shakespeare before in its efforts to promote the 
impression that Shakespeare has disappeared from English department 
curricula and thus that the humanities are in crisis.  In December 1996, 
it issued "The Shakespeare File:  What English Majors are Really 
Studying," a diatribe that apparently makes much the same point as does 
the present report, "The Vanishing Shakespeare."  ("The Shakespeare File" 
is available online: 
http://www.goacta.org/publications/Reports/shakespeare.pdf .)

As to Shakespeare's putative disappearance from the English major 
curriculum, I can offer my own experience at University of New Hampshire. 
Shakespeare is required only for English teaching majors; it is not 
required for regular English majors.  Even so, Shakespeare is by far the 
most popular course in the English department's curriculum and has been 
for as long as I've taught at UNH.  We offer at least 8 sections of 
Shakespeare a year, and usually 1 or 2 sections of advanced Shakespeare. 
By contrast, the only English major course which we offer more sections of 
is Introduction to Literary Analysis, the gateway course to the major and 
a required class.

What ought to concern us is not Shakespeare's place in the curriculum, but 
the shoddiness of journalistic reporting about our discipline.  Apparently 
the reporter made absolutely no effort at all to investigate the truth of 
the "report" she paraphrases--it seems to have traveled straight from the 
fax machine to the pages of USA Today.

In short, caveat lector.

Cheers,
Doug Lanier

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John D. Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 20 Apr 2007 11:43:16 -0400
Subject: 18.0302 Shakespeare Not
Comment: 	RE: SHK 18.0302 Shakespeare Not

I think asking whether Shakespeare is "required" in curricula is a red 
herring, because it's red meat to conservatives. The question is not 
whether Shakespeare is REQUIRED but whether it's TAUGHT.  My guess is that 
the birthday celebrations are NOT empty, though USA Today suggests they 
are, because Shakespeare is in fact TAUGHT almost everywhere, even though 
it's not a required course. That's certainly the case at Hope College, 
where I teach.

Best,
John Cox

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 20 Apr 2007 11:03:28 -0500
Subject: 18.0302 Shakespeare Not
Comment: 	RE: SHK 18.0302 Shakespeare Not

I suspected from the outset that there was something wrong with the study, 
and the first place I checked confirmed my suspicions. This is from the 
English Department website at UC, Berkeley, where I began my college 
career many years ago:

"The core of the major consists of seven courses: English 45A-45B-45C, a 
course in Shakespeare, an upper division course in literature before 1800, 
and two upper division seminars, English 100 and 150. English 45A-45B-45C 
is an intensive survey of literature in English from Chaucer through the 
20th century, including British, American, and Anglophone writing."

Since the various branches of the UC system generally maintain a high 
level of consistency, I expect UCLA and other allied universities also 
require the same things. What's more I expect that most professors 
teaching 45a include at least one play and an array of sonnets in their 
syllabi.

Somebody with the time might want to check into who these people are and 
how they came to their conclusions.

Cheers,
don

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 20 Apr 2007 19:01:36 +0100
Subject: 18.0302 Shakespeare Not
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0302 Shakespeare Not

Without going over old ground I have said on this list that "no one under 
30 should read Shakespeare".  I still stand by the spirit of the sentiment 
that the experience of being bored by obligatory Elizabethan plays is 
somewhat beyond the pale.  However, if the teaching of Shakespeare can be 
done - and done well - without the customary soporific effect then I am 
all for it. But there is also an absurd notion to this tendency.  To teach 
English without at least a cursory glance at Shakespeare's use of the 
language is rather like talking about painting without mentioning 
Rembrandt.

SAM SMALL

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		William Babula <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 20 Apr 2007 11:37:34 -0700
Subject: 18.0302 Shakespeare Not
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0302 Shakespeare Not

At Sonoma State University a liberal arts college in California a 
Shakespeare course is a major requirement for an English degree. No 
substitutions. A course I happen to teach. I thought you should hear from 
Schools that do require Shakespeare as well. There are fewer of us 
apparently.

William Babula

[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Ira Zinman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Saturday, 21 Apr 2007 21:44:54 EDT
Subject: 18.0302 Shakespeare Not
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0302 Shakespeare Not

In response to Jack Heller's query and the article on "Shakespeare Not" 
what disturbs me most is that those who are deciding to drop the 
requirement to have English Majors study Shakespeare seem to be a growing 
number of individuals who have no understanding of just how important 
Shakespeare's works really are.  Is there some fault in the manner in 
which Shakespeare is taught at some institutions which has caused a 
backlash by students who feel the material is without merit?  Is there a 
lack of faculty interest in Shakespeare?  I would like to know who and 
what has been behind the decision to cut Shakespeare from the curriculum.

Ira Zinman

[8]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		V. K. Inman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 23 Apr 2007 09:19:52 -0400
Subject: 18.0302 Shakespeare Not
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0302 Shakespeare Not

There is nothing new here. I graduated from the University of Maine in 
1968 as an English major. I was not required to take a course in 
Shakespeare. Did I miss anything? No. One is exposed to Shakespeare in so 
many other ways. We read several of his plays in high school, in 
introductory survey courses, and in courses about drama in general. What 
was required was that at least three of our courses had to be in English 
literature before the 17th century. I had Old English, Chaucer, and 
Elizabethan literature. Without these, and if I had only a course in 
Shakespeare, I would have had unbalanced understanding of early English 
literature.

V. K. Inman

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions 
expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor 
assumes no responsibility for them.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.